SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Ori) 193

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
B.R. SARANGI, SAVITRI RATHO, JJ.
M/s Kamala Agencies - Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha and others - Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No. 10119 of 2022
Decided On : 12-05-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Pitambar Acharya, Sr. Advocate along with M/s S. Rath and S.S. Tripathy.
For the Opp. Parties :Mr. Ashok Kumar Parija, Advocate General along with Mr. P.P. Mohanty, Additional Government Advocate.

Headnote:

TENDER - Veterinary Instruments Supply - Clause 5.2, 5.2.5, 5.2.5.2, 5.2.6.3 - The court dismissed the writ petition filed by a proprietorship firm and registered dealer seeking to quash the decision taken by the tender committee and to declare certain provisions of the bid document as void ab initio. The court found that the amendment to clause 5.2 was made in the larger public interest and for the benefit of all bidders, including the petitioner. The petitioner did not object to the amendment when it was published or during the evaluation of the financial bid. The court held that the petitioner's conduct estopped it from challenging the amendment and that the writ petition did not warrant interference.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a proprietorship firm and registered dealer, filed a writ petition seeking to quash the decision taken by the tender committee and to declare certain provisions of the bid document as void ab initio. The petitioner alleged that the relaxation of clauses of the bid document after the opening of the technical bid was arbitrary and unreasonable, violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and the principle prescribed under Article 299 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner contended that the alteration of the pre-qualification criteria after the opening of the technical bid was made to accommodate non-serious and ineligible bidders, and that the petitioner was grossly prejudiced by the participation of such bidders in the financial bid.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the amendment to clause 5.2 was made in the larger public interest and for the benefit of all bidders, including the petitioner. The court held that the petitioner's conduct estopped it from challenging the amendment and that the writ petition did not warrant interference.

Issues: The issues involved in the case were the validity of the amendment to clause 5.2 of the bid document, the petitioner's objection to the amendment, and the petitioner's standing to challenge the amendment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner's conduct estopped it from challenging the amendment to clause 5.2, as the petitioner did not object to the amendment when it was published or during the evaluation of the financial bid. The court also found that the amendment was made in the larger public interest and for the benefit of all bidders, including the petitioner.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner, as it did not find any merit in the petitioner's challenge to the amendment to clause 5.2 of the bid document.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. Sarangi, J.

The petitioner, which is a proprietorship firm and registered dealer, whole-seller, supplier and distributor of veterinary drugs/medicines, chemicals, veterinary instruments and equipments, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the decision taken by opposite parties no. 2 and 3 in the meeting of the tender committee under Annexure-4 dated 28.03.2022 and to declare the provisions of clause 5.2, more specifically clauses 5.2.5, 5.2.5.2 and 5.2.6.3 of the bid document, bearing reference No. 01/2021-22/DAHVS/ Veterinary Instruments/ Equipments/ Chemicals/ Reagents/ Media dated 29.12.2021 as void ab initio. The petitioner further seeks direction to the opposite parties to consider the financial bids of the eligible bidders fulfilling the prequalification criteria of un-amended clause 5.2 and to reject the bids of ineligible bidders, which were otherwise ineligible before amendment of clause 5.2, more specifically clauses 5.2.5, 5.2.5.2 and 5.2.6.3 of the bid documents.

2. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that opposite party no.2 floated an e-tender call notice on 29.12.2021 under Annexure-2, inviting eligible bidders for “supply of Veterinary Instruments, Equipments, Chemicals, Reagents & Media etc. for the year 2021-22” vide Bid Reference No. 01/2021-22/DAHVS/ Veterinary Instruments/ Equipments/ Chemicals/ Reagents/ Media. The schedule of dates mentioned in the said notice were later on amended vide Corrigendum-II dated 25.01.2022 and some of the deadlines were relaxed. The petitioner duly participated in the tender process and submitted its bid within the stipulated time. Clause 5.2 of the tender document prescribed the pre-qualification criteria to participate in the tender process. As per such clause, only the distributors, who have experience in supplying the quoted items, as mentioned in the schedule of requirement, to any Govt. organization/Govt. /Pvt. Hospitals / Other Agencies in India are eligible to submit bid for the tender. Clause 6.13 of the bid document contains the provisions regarding grounds for rejection of the bids. It has been specifically mentioned therein that those bidders, who will not fulfill the requirement of clause 5.2, will be disqualified from participating in the tender process. After opening of the technical bids on 15.02.2022, opposite parties No.2 and 3 called a meeting of the tender committee on 28.03.2022 under the chairmanship of Director, AH&VS and decided to alter the pre-qualification criteria, as contained in clause 5.2 of the bid document, and waive off the requirement of filing the Performance Statement in the Format-T9. Much after the opening of the technical bid, in order to accommodate more number of responsive bidders, as there were limited business opportunities during COVID-19 pandemic, the tender committee decided for alternation of prequalification criteria prescribed under clause 5.2. As per the requirement of clause 5.2, the bidders were to submit copies of the purchase orders placed by purchasers for any two financial year during 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21. Due to such decision of the tender committee in waving off the requirement of filing of the Performance Statement in Format-T9, an attempt was made to accommodate some non-serious and ineligible bidders, which were otherwise ineligible as per the provisions of the unamended clause 5.2. Alteration of the provisions of the bid documents, after opening of the technical bid, also runs contrary to clause 6.17 of the bid document, which prescribes the procedure for making amendment in the bid document. The petitioner, having come out successful and eligible in technical bid by fulfilling the stringent pre-qualification criteria as mentioned in clause 5.2 of the bid document, was grossly prejudiced because of participation of ineligible bidders in the financial bid, which

              Click Here to Read the rest of this document
              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7
              8
              9
              10
              11
              SupremeToday Portrait Ad
              supreme today icon
              logo-black

              An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

              Please visit our Training & Support
              Center or Contact Us for assistance

              qr

              Scan Me!

              India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

              For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

              whatsapp-icon Back to top